Incident Tracker / New Zealand
Jones v Family Court at Whangārei [2026] NZSC 1
·Supreme Court of New Zealand·NZDismissal
New Zealand's Supreme Court dismissed a self-represented litigant's leave application after his submissions cited hallucinated authorities from an AI application — real case names with wrong citations and misattributed cases. The Court awarded NZ$500 costs and warned that reliance on unverified AI outputs may, in serious cases, amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court.
- Court
- Supreme Court of New Zealand
- Date
- 2026-02-11
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A self-represented litigant's leave-application submissions cited multiple hallucinated authorities — real case names paired with wrong citations, plus genuine cases misattributed — produced by an AI application. The Supreme Court granted an extension of time but dismissed the leave application and used the judgment to warn about AI misuse in litigation.
- Outcome
- Dismissal
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-16
What was fabricated or misused
- Teddy v Police [2015] NZSC 62 — real case name combined with an incorrect citation
- Baird v R [2013] NZSC 120 — real case name combined with an incorrect citation
- Awatere Huata v Prebble [2002] 3 NZLR 827 — real case name combined with an incorrect citation
- Four further genuine but erroneously cited cases misattributed with propositions of law; the court did not name them.
What the court said
“In submissions filed in this Court, Mr Jones cited a number of authorities which appear to have been hallucinated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) application.”
“Misuse of AI in legal proceedings has serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.”
“Persons filing submissions in court must ensure all authorities referred to are genuine and correctly cited.”
“You are responsible for ensuring that all information you provide to the court/tribunal is accurate. You must check the accuracy of any information you get from a [generative AI] chatbot before using that information in court/tribunal proceedings.”
Timeline
- Family Court memorandum declined the safety-hearing application.
- Supreme Court granted the extension of time.
- Supreme Court dismissed leave after identifying AI-hallucinated authorities.
- Court ordered the applicant to pay the second respondent NZ$500.
Why this case matters
Jones is the tracker's first New Zealand Supreme Court entry involving AI-hallucinated authorities from a self-represented litigant. The warning is narrower than a lawyer-discipline case: the court accepted the modest filing delay but still dismissed leave and tied unverified AI citations to possible obstruction or contempt in serious cases. It should be read with Ayinde, which the court cited, and with Dineen/Shibata v Kotchka, another appellate decision holding a self-represented party to ordinary filing duties.
Practice note
Non-lawyers using AI to prepare submissions must check every cited case in NZLII, the Courts of New Zealand site, or another reliable database before filing. The check must cover the case name, citation, and proposition. If any item cannot be found, remove it rather than asking the court or the other party to sort it out.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
- Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in Courts and TribunalsCourts of New Zealand · NZ
- Generative AI guidance for lawyersNZ Law Society · NZ
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Jones v Family Court at Whangārei [2026] NZSC 1”, safelegalai.com/tracker/jones-v-family-court-whangarei (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.